AXELROD: Well, that's not -- that's not exactly what happened. The fact is that there was recruitment on the Harvard campus at the time that she was there. She maintained the policy that existed before she came there -- not allowing the career placement office ts -- to -- to host that. Because there was a policy relative to discrimination. When the law was passed and upheld banning that, then she changed the policy.

So she -- she tried to conform to the policy of the school, and the law. And yes, she expressed herself on the law. But she's always been very hospitable to military recruitment and to young people campus who wanted to serve their country. In fact, the irony of this discussion, Wolf, is her objection to the Don't Ask/Don't Tell law was she wanted everyone who wanted to serve their country -- every young person -- every young person who wants to serve the country to have that opportunity.

BLITZER: Because Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- he's concerned. He says this is a significant issue he wants to discuss with her -- especially her -- her comments back in 2003 that the Pentagon's policy, in her words, was "A profound wrong. A moral injustice of the first order."

AXELROD: Well, again, I think her concern was that every young American who wants to serve their country should have that opportunity. But Senator Sessions should and will have that opportunity to discuss it with her. And I hope that he also talks to the young men and women from Harvard who have served in the military who -- who -- who came into contact with -- with Dean Kagan when she was there, and who got her full support. Because she is -- she -- she was very close to veterans on campus. And they were very supportive of her.

And I hope that he also talks to the young men and women from Harvard who have served in the military who -- who -- who came into contact with -- with Dean Kagan when she was there, and who got her full support. Because she is -- she -- she was very close to veterans on campus. And they were very supportive of her.

that is pure Bullshit.

Hahvad is so respectful of the Military that it banned ROTC in 1969. Larry Summers in 2002 was the first President to attend Commissioning (at MIT). Presidents since have abandoned the practice... Show me a picture of Kagan on the podium at a commissioning, and I'll eat my Bronze Star :)

AXELROD: Well, that's not -- that's not exactly what happened. The fact is that there was recruitment on the Harvard campus at the time that she was there. She maintained the policy that existed before she came there -- not allowing the career placement office ts -- to -- to host that. Because there was a policy relative to discrimination. When the law was passed and upheld banning that, then she changed the policy.

again that is pure BS. She alog with other faculty that signed on to then law suit against the Solomnon Amendment. An Active, not a Passive action. That lawsuit lost 8-0 in the SCOTUS, a reflection, that her views were outside the range of SCOTUS opinion

I read the story. She did what they do at Harvard. But she also followed the court descisions after she made her moral point. Does any one believe she is a radical under Obama's mind control? I cannot see that in her personality or in her actions. Should we next stoop to accusing her of being a closet lesbian?

The notion of discrimination at this point is stupid. The law has many instances where discrimination is part of it's policies. But oh no, can't have the little Ha-vud effete be a part of this pedestrian and low-brow process now can we?

Of course that was a mistake. Although perhaps she was worried that Harvard students were too stupid to figure out what was in their best interest in joining the military? Otherwise, why shield them from those big mean military recruiters (could it be they can suck in the unaware gay student with those fabulous uniforms)?

If so, was not Congress's requiring every gay soldier and sailor to conceal his sexual orientation 24/7 or face expulsion a much larger lapse in judgment?

Right. Obviously Kagan's ire should have been directed at Congress, who passed the law, rather than the military recruiters who were just trying to do their jobs. Glad to see you agree that she was out of line.

Heh... Actually, Drill Sergeant, better find some red wine to go with that scarlet ribbon. The New York Times ran a picture of her yesterday pinning Captains' bars on some newly-minted Army JAG officer. :D

Most of Harvard's MOH winners were in the civil war, but they are heroes and worthy of great respect.

But my point is simple Jeremy, if you bothered to engage in reading comprehension (a topic not well taught in your GED program)--can't Harvard students make up their own minds on pursuing or not purusing a military career? Why should the school block the best and brightest* from making up their own minds?

The list of names serves as an indication of Harvard's former position as a bastion of noblesse oblige (two Theodore Roosevelts and a descendant of Alexander Hamilton and J. Pierpont Morgan), but it doesn't do much for the notion that Harvard Yard is some outpost of martial ardor today.

Why should the school block the best and brightest* from making up their own minds?

No students were blocked from making up their own mind. Harvard didn't even block the military from access to the students during her tenure, ever, only one office was restricted for one semester, after a ruling from the 3rd Circuit allowing it. The policy in question predates Kagan's tenure as dean, so in this case I expected a full blessing from conservatives BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT BEING AN ACTIVIST AND WAS FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED LAW.

"So we're to believe people who attend Harvard never serve in the military? There are 16 Medal of Honor recipients, the highest U.S. military decoration for bravery....who attended Harvard."

Here's the tally, war-by-war:

Civil War--7 Indian Wars--1 Mexican Incursion--1

For the record, the Medal of Honor was the ONLY decoration issued by the military until WWI. It might be instructive to go back and see how many of those were dropped back to something else (and, yes, Virginia, a lot of Medals of Honor were revoked and replaced by things like the DSC, etc.). So your high school may be as patriotic as Haavahd (even more).

"Legal" and "illegal" must have some correspondence with "just" and "unjust," else our justice system is sadly awry.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The distinction between right and wrong has utterly eluded you.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You have not established that the law is wrong. Indeed, having been in a shooting war, I would argue that ANYTHING that makes the military less efficient or erodes unit cohesion is far more wrong than inconveniencing people not even in the military, because lack of efficiency in a shooting war has a price measured in blood.

You can argue that homosexuals in uniform doesn't , in fact, erode unit cohesion or battlefield efficiency. But you aren't in a position to make that judgement. That is for Congress to decide, of course, based on input from their electorates and the services themselves. And since you've established yourself as a singularly sloppy and lazy thinker on innumerable issues here, and since you have zero expertise on the subject, I am rather more inclined to weigh the opinions of the service chiefs over the years more heavily than yours.

Indeed, if you told me the sky was blue, I would, given the source and your track record on this blog, consider it a sign that I should go outside and check.

Not on topic, but boy:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/the-night-beat-kagan-it-is/56433/#disqus_thread"Remember, all judicial battles are fought on the right's terrain, so Democratic judges always have to pledge fidelity to a legal formalism they don't really believe in."

Majorities of people want don't want gays to serve openly in the military. Majorities of people didn't want and don't want Obamacare. Majorities of people want more stringent controls on illegal immigrants. Majorities of people want less government and lower taxes.

What, exactly, is the problem that Democrats have with majorities. Funny name, Democrat.

Any organization that treats people differently based on their sexual orientation is unjust.

I am not concerned with the military being unjust. The military does not exist to give you a warm fuzzy about social justice. The military exists to deter war, and to fight and win our nation's wars. Period. Full stop.

The fact that you don't grasp this is precisely why I don't put much weight in your judgement.

I think any campus that takes federal funds should be open to military recruitment or lose funding. Not sure if Harvard receives federal money or not, but if they do, then they should allow recruitment.

I don't like making fun of someone's physical appearance, but if it makes you feel better, so be it.

I hope someone that upholds the rules in the Constitution is nominated. If we do not like the Constitution, we do have the power to change it via amendment.

Any organization that treats people differently based on their sexual orientation is unjust

I thought that the thrust of DADT was to treat everyone equally, since no one was to disclose their sexual orientation.

Basically the "shut up about your personal life and do your job bill".

Is Kagan lesbian? Who cares!

As long as she does her job as a justice properly, doesn't become an advocate and activist judge, interprets the Constitution and she doesn't make law from the bench, I don't care what she does in her personal life.

the difference being that you quoted the NYT of today that was trying to fly cover for Kagan where as I quoted the Harvard Law school paper from a year ago that wasn't pimping for Kagan.

there the picture was about Petraeus and Kagan got mentioned in para 4.

Petraeus was there as well to attend the MIT Hahvad commisioning cermony where he spoke. The commissioned 5 officers. the Keyknote speaker from Hahvad '59 noted in his year there were 121 ROTC cadets on campus.

And preferential treatment for one group makes the military more effective?

Do you have some examples of how that works?

Why, yes, FLS. In the most fundamental way the military operates. The division of ranks, specifically officers and enlisted.

They reality of the command structure of the military is that some groups get better treatment than others. Officers are not allowed to fraternize with enlisted personnel and vice versa. Enlisted personnel can't use the O Club. Officers on a ship wouldn't dream of entering the Chief's Mess without explicit permission from the senior chief on deck.

Within the ranks, there is preferential treatment based on speciality. People in combat get paid more. Aviators get flight pay. Ofttimes, pay is designated by risk. Any way you look at it, it's preferential treatment.

What have straight soldiers done to deserve preference over gay soldiers?

Simple, FLS. They've obeyed the law. The laws passed by Congress and enforced by the President, their CiinC. What don't you get about this? Things aren't fair in the military. They're not meant to be.

For the record, I'm all for the total repeal of DADT, and I'm disgusted, but not surprised, that Obama did not sign and executive order fully reintegrated the armed forces the way Truman finally did. I'm also for getting the government out of the marriage business.

But the law is is the law. And when you join the military, you give up an awful lot of your rights. You are subject to things so arbitrary they'll make your head spin.

It was not Kagan's roll as Dean of HLS to interpret the law of the land according to her whimsy. She is going to get a lot of blowback on her treatment of the military at Harvard, and IMHO, it's well deserved.

For the record, I'm all for the total repeal of DADT, and I'm disgusted, but not surprised, that Obama did not sign and executive order fully reintegrated the armed forces the way Truman finally did.

Don't blame Obama. The President cannot, by fiat, order the military to allow homosexual service members. That's black letter law, passed by Congress, signed by Bill Clinton (!) and on the books (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654).

Further, sodomy is still a violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ. That, likewise, is black letter law, passed by Congress. The President has no choice but to carry out the law.

The only discretion he has is in influencing the chain of command as to how vigorously to enforce the ban, and prosecute homosexual conduct.

A repeal of DADT does not work to the benefit of gays in the military, but to their detriment, since that means that any homosexual, whether sexually active or not, can be administratively discharged, and the active ones can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for sodomy for good measure.

DRill SGT - Didn't know that! With a "V"?--------------------Brian Hancock - "I hope someone that upholds the rules in the Constitution is nominated. If we do not like the Constitution, we do have the power to change it via amendment."

No, we really no longer have the power to change it by Amendment. The special interest forces are too organized, the blocking tactics refined to a science. The last Amendment passed with any controversy and real opposition to it was the Poll Tax repeal in 1962.

Since then, for the last 50 years, the only real way to change it is to get a majority of judges to make de facto Amendments up.

The other way is to have a vote to hold a Constitutional Convention where the whole thing is up for revsion. That of course scares the crap out of the "Reverers of the Sacred Parchment", even though Jefferson thought the whole thing should be reviewed and revised every 20 years, lest future generations were bound to the tyranny of the byegone.. But what did he know?

===================Chief mojo - "Can you really deny that the armed forces of the United States are the finest, most powerful and effective military in history?"

Yes, you probably can argue that on several counts, we aren't even close. We are not the finest military ever. We are not the most powerful ever (The Soviets were in the 70s, but we were powerful enough to check them). Certainly not the most effective. Other militaries have done more, faster, with a lot less troops and absent the "deluxe" US logistics train. (An example is Japan conquered all of Indochina except Thailand in 6 months and held it 4 years with only 15,000 troops. Part of that was everyone knew what happened to every village within 10 kilometers if the Japs were IED'd or bushwhacked.)

A lot of the "US military is the best, greatest, most efficient, with the finest soldiers ever to wear a uniform and every piece of equipment is "best in the world!" is boasting. Which boasters say is unpatriotic to dispute.

Sort of like how the Free Traders kept saying that the US worker could outproduce and outcompete any workforce in the world - and accused any questioning the vastly lower cost of foreign workforces giving an advatage saying they just weren't as smart and as hard-working as the hero workers critics were dissing. (As they made covert plans to destroy whole industries in America and send the work to overseas factories that greatly profited the select few in position to benefit from globalization)

Two schools in the country of any serious academic note do not take federal money: Grove City College and Hillsdale College.

I don't think many people think of those two schools as being of serious academic note, other than people who work there or who write National Review's college guide. But you are correct with regard to the paucity of US universities that do not take federal money.

Feller -- rove City College and Hillsdale have entrance stats that are quite high and you'll find them listed in every comprehensive list of the best colleges and universities.

I'm not here to back them. I'm just someone who, sadly, knows more than virtually anyone in the world about American colleges and universities. The reason I chose the language I did is because I rest assured that there are a few schools out there that don't take federal money that are freakishly religious.

"I also agree that the military exists to kill people and break things. Our military is simply not a just organization. Just ask anybody anywhere who has come across it in a war."

Or even in peacetime. It's not about being just or fair and those who serve give up some pretty basic rights for the duration. It's about the most effective way to get troops and resources where they need to be, when they need to be there, in order that the killing and breaking stuff can happen when it needs to happen. Not a single member has any rights compared to that, and certainly not the right to serve just because they want to do so.

"There are a lot of rules in the military that make little sense to outsiders. That's the way it should be."

Yes.

And when you have to deal with civilians it makes you nuts... but that's the way it should be, too.

"And preferential treatment for one group makes the military more effective?"

Preferential treatment for physically healthy people between the ages of 18 and 35 makes the military more effective?

I think that gays should be able to serve, but I don't think that they're going to like what they get when Congress gets done with it. The limitations on where and when women can serve is going to look downright liberal.

I'm still confused here. Harvard had a rule about this topic and it was followed...perhaps or perhaps not on her belief...but certainly because it was the College's rule.

Why all the flack? or is it some suspected slight toward the armed services? If no one has noticed the ROTC question has been hot for 40 years+...certainly during Viet Nam...and reminding some youngsters around here that although the stakes weren't any higher or one war was or is better or worse than another, the armed forces or potential law school grads - who, by the way, should have some legal perspective on this issue; more so than most of use - had a lot rougher go of it to "meet up and interview" back then than they do now.

Spent 20 years in the Corps on the enlisted side of the house. Knew of, or even personally knew many gay men and women serving at the time. Some were great Marines, some were total dirtbags, most were just middle of the road.

I lean toward allowing them to serve openly, but having retired as a senior enlisted recently, I can't help but think of it from that perspective. The enlisted folks are charged with making policy work.

If I'm the Company Gunny, I haven't the first clue how to billet these guys in the barracks. I'm going to tell my Battalion CO (because I would have just told my Company CO to) to do it himself because that's a headache I shouldn't have to deal with.

It's already bad enough watching a mixed gender unit grind to a halt over sexual harrassment allegations. I shudder to think of the doors that will be opened soon. Glad I retired when I did.

At least homosexuals can't get one another pregnant, so at least there's that headache avoided.

HD: Kagan did more than just follow the college's rule, she filed a friend-of-the court brief to the Solomon Amendment challenge (she wanted her political statement AND the Federal money too!) while berating the military for adhering to the law of the land.

Consider these words in particular from her letters to "All Members of the Harvard Law School Community": On Oct. 6, 2003, Kagan explained that she abhorred "the military's discriminatory recruitment policy... is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order." On Sep. 28, 2004: "...the military's recruitment policy is both unjust and unwise." And on March 7, 2006: "I hope that many members of the Harvard Law School community will accept the Court's invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military's discriminatory employment policy."

But it is not the military's policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Government, based on legislation passed in 1993 by (a Democratic) Congress, signed into law and implemented by the Clinton administration, legislation and implementation that are currently continued by a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress. It is intellectually wrong and morally cowardly to call this the "military's policy." Wrong for obvious reasons. Cowardly because it allowed Kagan to go ahead and serve in the Clinton administration that enforced this policy she so detests, and to welcome to Harvard as Dean former members of that administration, as well as Senators and Congressmen who actually voted for the law--which is more than the military recruiters whom Kagan sought to ban did.

Why didn't she take her opposition up where it might do some good, like with her buddy Bill Clinton or Democratic Congressmen? Instead she used the opportunity to showcase her antipathy towards those serving in the armed forces, in a typically elitist fashion.

Statutory orders passed by Congress, really, but who's paying attention? Certainly not the protesters at top universities. I recall when I was graduating law school, there was an effort to make a big show of protesting DADT by barring military recruitment on-campus. Extremely silly stuff. If they wanted the problem fixed, the target ought to have been Congress. But it's more about anti-military sentiment than it's really about DADT.

Are you arguing that the military is not a meritocracy? A strange position for a supporter of the military to take.

10 U.S.C. § 654

Have you read that? The thumbprints of the military are all over it. It contains 15 paragraphs of obsequience to the military, bowing in their direction because the military knows best. Arguing that "Congress made us do it" is the purest bovine manure.

In any event, Harvard is a civil institution, with civil values. The Constitution does not make the military supreme.

it was a mistake because the precedent they were trying to set would have fatally undermined title ix. that is how the SC saw it, and even the liberals were horrified at the implications of the argument she was complicit in presenting. that is why the argument was rejected, unanimously if memory serves.

Like i said, as a conservative, i very much like this choice. she will drive the court rightward by her bad arguments.

No, but the pilot thinks he's better than the cook. Because that's what pilots do. ;-P

No, no. Seriously. The corporate identity thing is a vital element of the military. Everyone has that extra bit of respect for the guy on the pointy end, but everyone also shares the identity of the guy on the pointy end.

I know I've made the argument about women in the military that it's wrong to make some special effort to protect women from risk because that sort of removes that corporate identity from them. By the same measure, though, insisting on the "glamour" job and not a support job gets no sympathy from me and the reason for that is that it's not supposed to be about you. Everyone gets to share the glory (for lack of a better way to put it) of the heroes because it's not about individuals but about being part of the whole.